Office of the Court Administrator vs. Hon. Myla M. Villavicencio-Olan, et al.

A judge who orders nearly all court personnel to leave the office during office hours to work at a new office construction site, thereby closing the court, is guilty of simple misconduct absent corruption or bad faith. The Court also established guidelines on the effects of administrative penalties on allowances, incentives, and benefits, holding that a guilty respondent may still receive PERA, RATA, and clothing allowance but not PEI, MYB, YEB, and cash gift for the year of finality.

Judge Villavicencio-Olan presided over Branch 7, RTC (Family Court), San Pablo City, Laguna, with a staff that included the respondent clerk of court, sheriff, psychologist, stenographer, clerk, process server, and interpreter. The branch occupied temporary office space while a new office at the Library Hub, Rizal Avenue, San Pablo City, was being completed. The judiciary operates under the Supreme Court's constitutional power of administrative supervision, and the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel impose duties of diligent court management and exclusive commitment to official duties during working hours.

Judge Myla M. Villavicencio-Olan was the Presiding Judge of Branch 7, Regional Trial Court (Family Court), San Pablo City, Laguna. Her staff included Clerk of Court V Atty. Rica Kathrine R. Austria, Sheriff IV Alvin P. Pilit, Psychologist II Keren Keshia L. Bobis, Court Stenographer III Irene M. Anatalio, Clerk III Clarrene Faith Aliazas, Process Server Oscar R. Rodelas, Jr., and Court Interpreter III Monette P. Camacho. Branch 7 also had Court Stenographer Fritz B. Abril and Legal Researcher II Eric Ivans D. Soriano. At the time, Branch 7 occupied a temporary office measuring about 21 square meters while a new office at the second floor of the Library Hub, Rizal Avenue, San Pablo City, was being constructed.

On July 21, 2019, an anonymous letter complaint was sent to Executive Judge Luvina P. Roque and the Office of the Court Administrator. The complainant alleged that Branch 7 violated the "No Noon Break" policy. He claimed that he had been visiting Branch 7 to follow up on the case of a loved one and was told that the court observed a "No Noon Break" policy. However, on more than three occasions, he arrived before 11:00 a.m. and found no employee around; the security guard told him that the employees and the judge were out for lunch. On July 19, 2019, he closed his store to allot more time for the trip, arrived at around 1:00 p.m., and found Branch 7 closed. He stayed until 4:30 p.m., witnessed the flag retreat ceremony, but Branch 7 remained closed, and he heard no sound from inside the office.

Executive Judge Padolina-Roque investigated. Atty. Peter Gian-Marc R. Reyes, Clerk of Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court, executed an affidavit stating that on July 19, 2019, between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., a woman approached him to ask how to inquire about a case with Branch 7; after speaking with her, he checked the staff room of Branch 7 and found it locked, and when he tried again later in the afternoon, it was still locked. He also confirmed that Branch 7 was absent from the flag lowering ceremony that day. The guard's logbook for July 19, 2019 showed that Atty. Austria and Sheriff Pilit left the Hall of Justice at 12:30 p.m., while Judge Olan, Bobis, Camacho, Anatalio, Aliazas, and Rodelas left at 1:00 p.m.; there were no entries showing that they returned in the afternoon. The August 23, 2019 Report prepared by Atty. Reyes listed Bobis, Camacho, Anatalio, Pilit, Aliazas, Austria, and Judge Olan as absentees from the July 19, 2019 flag lowering ceremony.

Judge Olan and Atty. Austria filed a Joint Comment. They argued that the claim that complainant visited Branch 7 before 11:00 a.m. on three occasions and found no staff was fabricated and baseless because the anonymous complaint gave no information or dates and was not under oath. They denied that Branch 7 was closed on the afternoon of July 19, 2019, saying that Court Stenographer Abril and Legal Researcher II Soriano were at the office for the whole day from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., as supported by their Joint Affidavit. They admitted that respondents left the office that afternoon but maintained that they had a valid reason: they visited their new office and helped prepare it. Judge Olan explained that on July 18, 2019, between 5:27 p.m. and 10:33 p.m., she had a Facebook Messenger conversation with Engineer Andrei Maniago of the Office of the Halls of Justice and the Contractor about the installation of electric and water lines for the new office. Because the approved floor plan had no comfort room, she requested permission from the Department of Education and the Office of the Halls of Justice to repair, renovate, and use an existing unserviceable comfort room at the ground floor. With the planned move-in originally set for August 2019, she decided to visit the site with her staff to identify what still needed to be done and to coordinate with appropriate agencies to expedite completion.

On July 19, 2019, a Friday with no scheduled hearings or pending orders, Judge Olan directed Atty. Austria to coordinate with the proper offices regarding the installation of electric and water supply for the new office. Atty. Austria instructed Sheriff Pilit to accompany her and provide transportation; Clerk Aliazas and Interpreter Camacho to conduct an inventory of glass panels and other materials removed from the site and identify usable materials for disposal; and Psychologist Bobis, Stenographer Anatalio, and Process Server Rodelas to clean the premises of the new office. Judge Olan directed Contractual Stenographer Abril and Legal Researcher Soriano to remain at the office to attend to any concerns or inquiries. At around 12:30 p.m., Atty. Austria and Sheriff Pilit left the Hall of Justice and proceeded to the site, where they coordinated with the foreman of Power K Construction Company, Mr. Enrico Amante, and then went to the offices of the Department of Education of San Pablo City and the Bureau of Fire Protection. At 1:00 p.m., Judge Olan, Aliazas, Camacho, Bobis, Anatalio, and Rodelas left the office together. Before leaving, Judge Olan informed the guards on duty that she and her staff would visit the site of their new office so that the guards would know their whereabouts in case of urgent matters involving Branch 7. Upon arrival, each staff member performed assigned duties under her direct supervision. Atty. Austria and Sheriff Pilit followed them to the site at around 2:30 p.m., while Abril and Soriano were instructed by Judge Olan to proceed to the site at 4:00 p.m. to help clear the site and move out items and materials that would not be used. They cleaned the premises and finished by 5:00 p.m.

The other respondents filed Joint Comments that essentially corroborated the facts in the Joint Comment of Judge Olan and Atty. Austria and gave details on each person's specific whereabouts and tasks. The OCA observed that the claim that Branch 7 was closed on three occasions should be denied for lack of evidence, but that although Branch 7 was closed for nearly the entire day of July 19, 2019, this did not denote guilt for loafing because respondents were at the site of the new office performing assigned tasks. The JIB, however, found Judge Olan's explanation unsatisfactory and that almost her entire staff left the office during office hours. It also found that the other respondents merely followed Judge Olan's orders, while Abril and Soriano, who were tasked to stay and attend court functions and claimed in their affidavit that they were in the office in the afternoon, were found not to be therein.

• Insufficiency of Evidence: Complainant OCA recommended dismissal of the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, observing that the claim that Branch 7 was closed on three occasions was denied for lack of evidence.
• No Loafing on July 19, 2019: Complainant OCA maintained that although Branch 7 was closed for nearly the entire day on July 19, 2019, this did not denote guilt for loafing because respondents were at the site of the new office performing assigned tasks.
• Stern Warning: Complainant OCA recommended that respondents be sternly warned to be more circumspect in their actions in and out of the workplace, with repetition of the same or similar incident to be dealt with more seriously.

• Fabricated and Baseless Claim: Judge Olan and Atty. Austria argued that the claim that complainant visited Branch 7 before 11:00 a.m. on three occasions and found no staff was fabricated and baseless because the anonymous complaint gave no information or dates and was not under oath.
• Office Not Closed on July 19, 2019: They argued that the claim that Branch 7 was closed on the afternoon of July 19, 2019 was false because Court Stenographer Fritz Abril and Legal Researcher II Eric Ivans Soriano were at the office for the whole day from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., as supported by their Joint Affidavit.
• Valid Reason for Leaving: They maintained that respondents left the office that afternoon for a valid reason: to visit and prepare their new office, including coordinating installation of electric and water lines, inventorying glass panels and materials, and cleaning the site for their scheduled move-in.
• Compliance with Instructions: The other respondents corroborated the facts in Judge Olan and Atty. Austria's Joint Comment and provided details on each person's specific whereabouts and tasks.

• Administrative Liability of Judge Olan: Whether Judge Olan should be held administratively liable for directing nearly all of her staff to leave the office during office hours on July 19, 2019 to work at the site of their new office, resulting in the closure of Branch 7.
• Administrative Liability of Court Personnel: Whether Judge Olan's court personnel should be held administratively liable for following her order and being absent from the office during office hours on July 19, 2019.
• Liability of Abril and Soriano: Whether Court Stenographer Fritz B. Abril and Legal Researcher II Eric Ivans D. Soriano should be required to explain why they should not be held administratively liable for their absence and/or the closure of their court during office hours on July 19, 2019, and whether they attended the flag lowering ceremony.
• Effects on Allowances, Incentives, and Benefits: Whether the imposition of administrative penalties affects the entitlement of judiciary members and personnel to allowances, incentives, and other benefits, and what guidelines should govern such effects.

• Administrative Liability of Judge Olan: Yes. Judge Olan is guilty of simple misconduct for ordering nearly all her staff to leave the office during office hours to work at the new office site, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the New Code of Judicial Conduct; she is fined PHP 18,000.00.
• Administrative Liability of Court Personnel: No. The court personnel who merely obeyed Judge Olan's order are spared from liability and the complaint against them is dismissed, though they are enjoined to advise their presiding judge to act properly.
• Liability of Abril and Soriano: They are directed to explain why they should not be held administratively liable for their absence and/or the closure of their court during office hours and whether they attended the flag lowering ceremony on July 19, 2019.
• Effects on Allowances, Incentives, and Benefits: The Court established guidelines; Judge Olan remains entitled to PERA, RATA, and Clothing and Uniform Allowance, but is not entitled to PEI, MYB, YEB, and Cash Gift for 2024; fines may be garnished or withheld.

• Administrative Liability of Judge Olan: The Court adopted the JIB's finding. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more specifically unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; it is grave if attended by corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, proved by substantial evidence. A judge has both adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. Under Canon 3, Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, facilitate the performance of administrative functions of other judges and court personnel, organize and supervise court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require high standards of public service and fidelity. Canon 6, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judicial duties take precedence over all other activities. Judge Olan's order for nearly her entire staff to leave the office and work at the new office site on July 19, 2019 was not a valid reason to close the office. It was inappropriate for almost all of her staff of ten, except two, to leave during office hours; even if true, the explanation showed indifference to official hours and duties and bad court management. The construction and related matters were not the judge and staff's job but that of the contractor, carpenters, and janitors; if she wanted to do extra work, it should have been after office hours or on weekends, not at the expense of required office hours or to the detriment of public service. Absent corruption or bad faith, the act constituted simple misconduct. Under Rule 140 as amended, simple misconduct is a less serious charge, penalized by suspension or fine, and the mitigating circumstance of first offense justified the reduced fine of PHP 18,000.00.
• Administrative Liability of Court Personnel: The court personnel—Clerk of Court V Atty. Austria, Sheriff IV Pilit, Psychologist II Bobis, Stenographer III Anatalio, Clerk III Aliazas, Process Server Rodelas, and Interpreter III Camacho—appeared to have simply obeyed the order or instruction of Judge Olan, their superior, and should be spared from liability. Nonetheless, they should be enjoined to advise their presiding judge to do what is proper and act in accordance with the rules, within the limits of reason and respect. Canon IV, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires court personnel to perform official duties properly and with diligence and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. The Court therefore adopted the JIB's recommendation to dismiss the complaint against them.
• Liability of Abril and Soriano: Court Stenographer Abril and Legal Researcher II Soriano were tasked to stay and attend court functions. They claimed in their affidavit that they were in their office in the afternoon of July 19, 2019, but were found not to be therein. The Court required them to explain why they should not be held administratively liable. They should be compelled to explain their absence and/or the closure of their court during office hours, and whether they attended the flag lowering ceremony held at 4:45 p.m. on July 19, 2019, since as narrated in their affidavit, they were instructed to go to their new office at 4:00 p.m. to assist in cleaning, although they were not included in the list of absentees in the said ceremony.
• Effects on Allowances, Incentives, and Benefits: The Court discussed the effects of administrative penalties—dismissal, suspension, fine, and reprimand—on entitlement to allowances, incentives, and other benefits granted by the Court and the national government. Existing memorandum orders generally provide that benefits shall not be given to those found administratively guilty during the period covered by the grant, unless the penalty is only reprimand or warning; release for those preventively suspended is deferred until termination of the administrative case. The Court reaffirmed existing rules for performance-based benefits such as the Employee Imperatives Assistance and the Cost of Living Allowance under the Judiciary Development Fund. It then established additional guidelines for PERA, RATA, Clothing and Uniform Allowance, Productivity Enhancement Incentive, Mid-Year Bonus, Year-End Bonus, and Cash Gift. For PERA, RATA, and Clothing and Uniform Allowance, benefits continue pending resolution while the personnel are allowed to render service, but if preventively suspended they are not entitled during the suspension; upon final judgment, dismissal, suspension of more than one month, or fines affect entitlement. For the Productivity Enhancement Incentive, Mid-Year Bonus, Year-End Bonus, and Cash Gift, personnel formally charged with pending administrative cases are entitled until found guilty by final and executory judgment; if found guilty, they are not entitled in the year of finality and must refund the amounts received, except when the penalty is mere reprimand. Fines may be garnished or withheld to cover the fine imposed. Applying these rules, Judge Olan, who was found guilty of simple misconduct and fined PHP 18,000.00, remains entitled to PERA, RATA, and Clothing and Uniform Allowance, but is not entitled to the Productivity Enhancement Incentive, Mid-Year Bonus, Year-End Bonus, and Cash Gift for 2024. The rules do not distinguish among offenses once guilt is proven; whether simple or grave, a guilty respondent is not entitled to those bonuses.

• Simple Misconduct — Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more specifically unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It is grave if attended by corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, which must be manifest and proved by substantial evidence. Absent corruption or bad faith, it is simple misconduct. The Court applied this to Judge Olan, whose order for nearly her entire staff to leave the office during office hours to work at the new office site was not a valid reason to close the court and showed indifference to official hours and duties and bad court management.
• Administrative Responsibilities of Judges — Under Canon 3, Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, facilitate the performance of administrative functions of other judges and court personnel, organize and supervise court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require high standards of public service and fidelity. Canon 6, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judicial duties take precedence over all other activities. Judge Olan violated these responsibilities by closing the office and taking almost her entire staff to the construction site during office hours; the construction work was not the judge and staff's job, and she should have assigned only a few personnel while the majority remained in court.
• Duty of Court Personnel — Canon IV, Section 1 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel requires court personnel to perform official duties properly and with diligence and to commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. The personnel who merely obeyed Judge Olan's order were spared from liability, but they were enjoined to advise their presiding judge to act properly within the limits of reason and respect.
• Effects of Administrative Penalties on Allowances, Incentives, and Benefits — The Court established and reaffirmed guidelines on the effects of administrative penalties on judiciary benefits:
  • PERA: Given monthly to all employees irrespective of employment status; pending cases continue while allowed to render service, but if preventively suspended, not entitled during suspension; upon final judgment, dismissal or suspension of more than one month results in no entitlement for the duration, while suspension of one month or less also results in no entitlement for the duration; fines and reprimand do not automatically disqualify except as provided.
  • RATA: Attached to position and based on actual work performance on workdays; same pending, preventive suspension, and final judgment rules as PERA.
  • Clothing and Uniform Allowance: OCA Circular No. 27-2000 lacks provisions on sanctions; the Court adopted the same rules as PERA and RATA.
  • PEI: Personnel formally charged with pending administrative cases are entitled until found guilty by final and executory judgment; if found guilty, not entitled in the year of finality and must refund; mere reprimand retains entitlement.
  • MYB: Distinct from Mid-Year Economic Assistance; same rule as PEI, with refund if found guilty.
  • YEB and Cash Gift: Same rule as PEI and MYB; if found guilty, not entitled in the year of finality and must refund both Year-End Bonus and Cash Gift; mere reprimand retains entitlement.
  • Fines: May be garnished or withheld to cover the fine imposed.
  • Application: Judge Olan, guilty of simple misconduct and fined PHP 18,000.00, remains entitled to PERA, RATA, and Clothing and Uniform Allowance, but not to PEI, MYB, YEB, and Cash Gift for 2024.

• "Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more specifically, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if the same involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be manifest and proved by substantial evidence." — Defines misconduct and distinguishes grave from simple misconduct; the Court used this to classify Judge Olan's offense as simple misconduct absent corruption or bad faith.
• "The explanation is unsatisfactory. The reason is not valid. It is inappropriate for respondent judge and almost her entire staff of ten (10), except two (2), to leave their office and go for that purpose during office hours. The explanation, even if true, shows indifference to official hours and duties." — The Court adopted the JIB's finding that Judge Olan's explanation was unsatisfactory and showed indifference to official hours and duties, supporting the simple misconduct finding.
• "If at all, she should have just instructed one (1), two (2) or three (3) personnel to do the job and the majority to remain in court and attend to whatever duties and functions as may be required for the day." — States the proper court management measure Judge Olan should have taken instead of taking almost the entire staff to the new office site during office hours.
• "Once found administratively guilty, the individual concerned shall not be entitled to the Mid-Year and Year-End bonuses, and Cash Gift." — Articulates the Court's guideline on the effects of administrative guilt on bonuses and cash gift, applied to Judge Olan for 2024.

• Judge Alano vs. Delicana, A.M. No. P-20-4050 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4600-P), June 14, 2022 [Per Curiam, En Banc] — Cited for the definition of misconduct: a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more specifically unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; grave if attended by corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules, proved by substantial evidence.

• Article VIII, Section 6, 1987 Constitution — Vests the Supreme Court with administrative supervision over all courts and personnel; cited as basis for adopting guidelines on the effects of administrative penalties on allowances, incentives, and benefits.
• Section 20, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Echoes the Court's administrative supervision power; cited alongside Article VIII, Section 6.
• Canon 3, Rules 3.08 and 3.09, Code of Judicial Conduct (1989) — Require judges to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, facilitate administrative functions, organize and supervise court personnel for prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require high standards of public service and fidelity; Judge Olan violated these.
• Canon 6, Section 1, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004) — Provides that judicial duties take precedence over all other activities; cited to hold Judge Olan liable for prioritizing new office work during office hours.
• Canon IV, Section 1, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, May 15, 2004) — Requires court personnel to perform official duties properly and with diligence and commit exclusively to office business during working hours; cited in dismissing the personnel but enjoining them to advise their presiding judge.
• Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, February 22, 2022, Sections 15, 17(2)(a) and (b), and 19(1)(a), Rules of Court — Classifies simple misconduct as a less serious charge, prescribes suspension or fine, and allows mitigating circumstances such as first offense; basis for the PHP 18,000.00 fine.
• OCA Circular No. 27-2000 (April 12, 2000) — Outlines requirements for clothing allowance in lower courts; noted as lacking provisions on the impact of sanctions, prompting the Court to establish rules.
• Various Memorandum Orders (MO Nos. 154-2023, 154-A-2023, 149-2023, 149-A-2023, and others) — Grant allowances, assistances, and benefits to judiciary officials and personnel; generally provide that benefits are not given to those found administratively guilty during the covered period unless the penalty is reprimand or warning, with release deferred for preventively suspended personnel.
• Court Resolution En Banc dated June 26, 2018 — Contains the categorized list of salaries and allowances of trial court judges; cited as basis for allowances common to all members of the judiciary.
• Supreme Court Human Resource Manual, Chapter XI, p. 2 (January 21, 2012) — Cited for PERA being given monthly to all employees irrespective of employment status and RATA being attached to position and based on actual work performance.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Rosario, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur. Hernando, J., on leave; Inting and J. Lopez, JJ., on official leave.